I don't blame guns for violent people. I blame easy access to guns by violent people for mass shootings. People drive, some people drink and drive. I don't think the solution is to take away all cars from all people. By the same token, however, I don't think allowing everyone access to military vehicles is a good idea either. Drunk drivers with access to military vehicles would cause even more death. Non drunk drivers with military vehicles would be emboldened to take actions that might result in death that they wouldn't otherwise take. Guns are the same. Those relatively few people who use guns for violent reasons are able to do more damage because they have access to semi automatic weapons. Those people who are not violent are emboldened to do things they wouldn't normally do because they are "packing" I don't want anyone to have access to a vehicle with armor plating, equipped with a gun turret and a ram on the front of it. It doesn't matter if they drive drunk or not. I don't anyone to have access to a semi automatic weapon with an extended clip and armor piercing rounds. It doesn't matter if they are violent or not. I don't want to remove ALL guns just as I don't want to remove ALL vehicles. But the ones that are more dangerous, yeah we need better control over those.
Access to just about everything is easy if you are willing to break the law. Everyone has access to such vehicles. All you need is $. https://armyjeeps.net/urhig-miltary-inventory/ https://www.drivetanks.com/own-one/ "All bearable arms". If you can legally own a gun, the constitution protects your right to own and use the above.
Once you make the most dangerous weapons illegal, there will still be people shooting people, and they'll be using the most dangerous weapons still available. Ban those next? You say you dont want to ban all guns... which guns -that some people are still always going to be shooting people with- are you going to be like 'we've banned enough, lets find a different solution'? Because if that line doesnt exist, then you DO want to ban all guns, just not all of them right now at the same time. There will qlways be a 'most dangerous type of legal firearm' until no fireararms are legal. If you dont want to ban all guns, which ones do you think are important enough to keep legal even if some people use them for violent crime and mass murder?
Not if they are not available. I don't see any bank robbers using bazookas to rob banks. You can own a tank as long as the main gun is disabled and you only drive it on private land. Fine, you can own an AR-15 as long as the firing pin is disabled and you can't take it off your property. But you don't want to change the definition of what guns can be "legally owned." That's the very issue I'm talking about.
Do you really think the Las Vegas shooter would have been able to do what he did with a shotgun, a bolt action rifle or a revolver?
The questions asked first get answered first. Otherwise you're just dodging presumably because you don't have an answer. Answer mine THEN i'll answer yours.
I love the abject ignorance of anti gun posters. They act as if the AR 15 is some sort of death ray gun and nothing else is like it/ If CIVILIAN police have access to a certain type of firearm for self defense, than other civilians ought to too. Your silly proposals are designed to help violent criminals
Your proposals that we have in force right now...the laws that are on the books RIGHT NOW...the laws that you don't want to change RIGHT NOW are the laws that help the violent criminals? Why do you so many violent people use semi automatic weapons? Because semi automatic weapons are so easy to get! If fully automatic weapons were as easy to get then we'd see more school shootings with fully automatic weapons. Why do you think there are more restrictions on fully automatic weapons? And guess what? THOSE RESTRICTIONS WORK and because of that we don't see fully automatic weapons used in these mass shooting events. Would you be in favor of putting the same restrictions on semi automatic weapons that we currently have on fully automatic weapons?
Really, from a hotel about 1,500 feet away? In a time span of about 10 minutes? Using bolt action rifles and shotguns, under those conditions, you are claiming he would have killed more?
Where in there did I say an AR-15 was a military weapon. I didn't. I said that people don't have access to military vehicles. I didn't say that the AR-15 was a military weapon. My argument is that an AR-15 is too dangerous to be sold willy nilly as they are now. Just as a military vehicle with armor plating and a battering ram would be too dangerous.
Military vehicles with armor plating and battering rams ARE legal. Its just you have the artillery removed (unless you have a destructive devices permit and yearly fee from the ATF). Take off the artillery and it just becomes another vehicle that you can put in your yard. Driving them on public roads is complicated, but you can have, and use, whatever vehicle on your own property.
you just don't get it what law is going to stop someone with its threat of punishment, when the threat of punishment for committing mass murder does not? Most firearms sold today are semi auto--90% of the handguns, more than half the rifles and shotguns. I would be in favor of jailing any politician who pisses on the second amendment. You also have absolutely no clue about automatic weapons-you probably think a firearm operated in fully automatic mode is more deadly than one in semi auto. When you try to hide your real reasons for wanting to ban common firearms and pretend it is to reduce violent crime, you should at least have a clue about the subject
You intimate you don't want people to have access to military weapons... and they don't. So its all ok... right? AR-15's are not sold "willy-nilly". Ketchup is sold "willy-nilly". An AR-15 requires a background check. I never ran into anyone that wanted to buy an armored vehicle with a battering ram. Is that really a big problem somewhere?
Yeah, there are a dozen bolt action rifles that take what people like you call high capacity magazines and fire cartridges far more lethal than what Paddock had. rifles that -in that environment of massed targets-might kill two or three people with one round since a 30.-06 will go through a body easily.
so tell us what firearms are not so dangerous as to cause you to want to ban them how about the hundreds of thousands of MI Garands and MI carbines that the US government sold us US civilians for decades . I suspect you don't know how many firearms operate just like the AR 15 because your anti gun position is based on politics rather than really having any understanding of crime and gun use by criminals
Nevermind drunk semi drivers or pilots or captains... So you don't even want military people to have access to military vehicles? Because you said you don't want anyone to have access to those.
Even the military knows that fully automatic weapons have limited value. Our military has added "burst limiters" for that reason. "Spray and pray" is never as effective as a single well place round. In the Falklands, the British and Argentines used the same weapon. The Argentine version was capable of full auto, The British version was semi-auto only. The Brits won hands down while the Argentines just ran out of ammo.
Of course they won't stop at banning so-called assault rifles. If I can get that wet dream realized as soon as the next mass shooting or two or three happens with a handgun, they'll be going after those next. Any Democrat that tells you they're not trying to ban all guns is either lying to you or simply not paying attention to the final goal
AR15s, et al, will always be available. You said: a vehicle with armor plating, equipped with a gun turret and a ram on the front of it. - That's not a tank. - Such vehicles are already available to everyone. Any such restriction violates the constitution. All "bearable arms" may be legally owned. There's no reason for me to want to change this - and to change it, you need to amend the constitution. Why do you anti-gun types always ignore the constitution?
Him? No. We're lucky he used an AR. Every other mass shooter in the US? Could have easily done what he did with a pump-action shotgun.
Well, OP did say 'semi automatic' instead of just assault weapons, which would include the pistols that most murder (and mass murder) is perpetrated with, and so gets points for using better terminology than fellow gun banners... but also that includes the weapons that even many gun banners carry for self defense, so now is in the realm of low popularity. I'm still waiting for a reply from OP on which weapons are OK for us to have, given that all types will be used to hurt some people do some degree.
you're dealing with someone who has no understand of ballistics, or that a 12G deer slug shot at the angle Paddock was shooting from would be brutal
